Talk:Boran

Name

Her name is simply spelled as "Boran" (or "Buran") on all her silver drachma, as well as on her special issue gold coinage where she is shown in a frontal pose. For instance one can look up any book on Sasanian numismatics like Göbl. I have cited publications of Dr. Daryaee. Therefore that is what she was called in her lifetime.

"B" and "P" look entirely different in Pahlavi, so her actual name could NOT have possibly been "Poran". That is something that simply appeared in latterday, possibly post-Islamic works (such as Shahnameh). "Borandokht" (بوراندخت) appears mostly in modern Persian literature, as far as I know.

Encyclopedia Iranica uses Boran (as do many major publications – books of Dr. Farrokh, for instance). So I am moving the page to Boran which is more elegant and more accurate.--Grinevitski (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Grinevitski: That's fine mate :). There is just one thing: Farrokh is not a reliable source (trust me I've used it before), so it would be best to avoid using it in the future. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input. Point taken. --Grinevitski (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision of the lede

The following is a summary of the motivations behind my recent revision:

• The article was poorly researched (I only edited the lede as the article is too voluminous to edit at once). For one reason, it was almost entirely based upon the views of P. Pourshariati and her hypothesis of a "Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy". Her interpretations and methodology have been criticized by other scholars, so they are not by any means the universal view. Yet, it was being purported as such, which is effectively giving undue weight to a minority view (WP:UNDUE).

• Moreover, my revision is written from a much more neutral point of view. Drawing on multiple sources, it presents, for instance, all possibilities for the length of reign (instead of only one). I balanced the dubious claim about "Maria" (which is predicated upon taking Shahnameh as a historical source) with a footnote.

• My revision gives a fairly succinct overview of all known aspects of the monarch's life — many of which were previously neglected (e.g. fate, and relationship to the previous two rulers).

• A late development such as Purandukht, written in the lede using a script which did not exist until centuries later, adds very little encyclopedic value to the reader.

• Finally, the present revision contains large swathes being copied from sources without alteration. This potentially constitutes a violation of copyright policy. My revision improved not only the overall written composition, but it also paraphrased material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telementor (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree, there aren't really any other detailed works about Boran than Pourshariati. Like every other historian, she is obviously subject to critism, that's how the academic world works. It can't however be denied that her work is quite seminal, especially when it comes to the Sasanian-Parthian relationship and religion in ancient Iran. The article is heavily based on Pourshariati, as there isn't much else to use unfortunately. Historical studies on Sasanian history is still heavily lacking. We'll have to wait for more about Boran in the future (also take note that I refrained from putting the Arab invasion of Iran during her reign, since that part is indeed not accepted in modern scholarship - I have made use of what we have to make this as balanced as possible, ultimately this isn't poorly researched at all).

• Your revision shows old sources which are in some fields outdated. Not to mention they don't go into detail regarding Boran at all. The Shahnameh is often used as a source in Iranian studies.

• And mine didn't? You removed some important bits and added that she was the aunt of Ardashir III? (which I already had mentioned in a much more detailed way) Wow, such an important and great detail.

• There's nothing wrong with having her name in New Persian as well, we tend to do that on a vast amount of other articles. This just feels like nit-picking now.

• No it doesn't, simple as that. Also, a lede is meant to summarize the rest of the article, which it already did. What you did was remove that and turn it into a speculation lede and spam unformatted citations, completely ruining the flow of the article. Mind you, this is a GA article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• The extant historical documents on Boran are very scant; that is also a main reason why there haven't been many "detailed works". What Pourshariati has added is, in a manner of speaking, a reinterpretation and speculation based on the existing material. It is therefore very conjectural. My intention was to present her views as one possible explanation (i.e., indicate that the view belongs to her). You, on the other hand, are presenting her views as the only explanation. I gave two other explicit examples in my last post where your revision was weighing in on the side of Pourshariati even when opposing views exist in modern scholarship.

• Concerning the New Persian names. True, but I believe it is a wrong practice in principle. It's tantamount to including the present-day Arabic names for Mesopotamian and Egyptian rulers.

• I concede your point concerning the citation format (I was not aware of that). My main motivation for the edit was the objectivity of the article. You have also ignored the copyright problem, but Wikipedia's policies are that except for brief, clearly marked quotations, everything you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. There are presently multiple passages taken verbatim.Telementor (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• There are figures of even more obscurity that we know a lot more about thanks to the efforts of modern historians. As I said, unfortunately there hasnt been paid much attention to Sasanian history (till recent times that is). Pourshariati is the only one to make a throughout detailed analysis of Boran if not the late Sasanian rulers altogether (where she makes many good points). Obviously there will be more of this type of detailed work, but it will take time. Pourshariati is doing exactly what many other historians have, this style of hers is no different from others. As I said, her work is quite seminal (and that's for a good reason, if she is as you are describing her then that wouldn't be the case) and I don't see why we shouldn't make use of her work. Look, I get that you have good intentions, and I do hear you, but that is not the way to do it. You're more than welcome to present the other views, but do it in a section / foodnote, something like 'her reign is sparsely known, and even the length of her reign is uncertain etc etc', and then you can add on the lede (and don't remove anything) something like that. You don't go and remove a whole well-written summary and turn it into a speculation hub, that's not an improvement at all (in fact it's the complete opposite). If that's too much for you (obviously not meant in a bad way, we all have our lives to tend to), I will be more than happy to do it myself, although it won't be right now. I'll put it on my to-do-list.

• Well, that's not the best example, neither Mesopotamian nor Egyptian rulers were Arab / saw themselves as monarchs of an Arab nation. Btw, I don't put New Persian on the lede of every pre-Islamic Iranian-related article, I do agree that there are limits. I don't put it on Achaemenid rulers for example etc. The Sasanians are just too iconic and influental in Iranian history to not include New Persian in the lede (also, it wasn't that long after the Sasanians that New Persian became a thing).

• I haven't ignored anything, read my comment again please. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Pourshariati is a good reference, but my concern is that, the present articles make it appear as if her theories have become the mainstream view. Scholars of history often speculate on matters to which definite knowledge is unascertainable. How widely is Pourshariati's contention of the double reign (and more generally the "Parsig vs. Pahlav" dichotomy) accepted in scholarly circles today?

I will leave the editing to you, as I am a bit tied up working on unrelated articles. But I will check back sporadically in the future.

• Unfortunately, the articles on Achaemenid rulers also contain the New Persian names. My understanding is that the native name in the lede serves to present the individual's name as it appeared in their lifetime. I believe there needs to be consistency; if New Persian names or Perso-Arabic script did not exist in their time, don't use them. Otherwise it becomes a slippery slope: what if one decides to add the Tajik Cyrillic spelling?

• My opinion is that, you generally can't retain something like the following without some assurance that the material is not under copyright:

"She was committed to reviving the memory and prestige of her father, during whose reign the Sasanian Empire had grown to its largest territorial extent."

To efface copyright problem (and for a better literature review), one could say: According to Daryaee (1999), "she was committed to reviving the memory...".Telementor (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Boran is given some different dates by different historians as far as I've seen. However, Pourshariati is the only historian to make an actual detailed and thorough analysis about her, clearly doing much research, unlike other historians who write an almost copy-paste half-arsed line or two about her. Also, this Parsig/Pahlav thing is nothing new, I have seen Mary Boyce talk somewhat about it in her works from the 1970-1980s. Nowadays, historians such as Shayegan, Olbrycht, Shahbazi, McDonough etc mention it too. Unlike Pourshariati however, they prefer to use the English terms "Persian" and "Parthian". Historical figures such as Vistahm and Bahram Chobin, and the sacred fires of Adur Gushnasp, Adur Farnbag and Adur Burzenmihr (and many other things) are good examples of the relationships between the two groups.

Well, if it makes it any better then most of the Achaemenid articles are pretty bad anyways. They generally need a heavy rewrite. But yes I can see what you mean, however, I think that kind of discussion requires a lot more people than just the two of us.

Is that it? You said that the lead "contained large swathes being copied from sources without alteration." If that's all, then that's not large at all. I'm pretty sure that has been in the lead for like almost a decade. Anyhow, what source is it derived from? I'll take a look at it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Borani

It's more likely that the name of the food Borani is originated from Buran bint al-Hasan ibn Sahl and not Boran (see the last sentence of the second reign section in the current article).

Source: Burani Aminabzz (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not what the source says; "According to Naḵjavānī (p. 145), the term būrānī is derived from the name of Būrān, daughter of Ḥasan b. Sahl and wife of the caliph al-Maʾmūn, who is supposed to have created this dish. The author of the Farhang-e Nafīsī (Nafīsī, I, p. 657), however, suggests the name of the Sasanian queen Būrāndoḵt (r. 630-31) as the origin of the term." --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)